Grealish & Kane in Pogba & Martial out

OrcaFat

Full Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,657
I honestly think Kane and Grealish will have priced themselves out of moves by signing their contracts, unless they negotiated a release clause.

Think the transfer sagas will drag on and on all summer and amount to nothing. Obviously clubs would have them, but I don't think any club would be so desperate for them that they would fold at the last minute and pay whatever ridiculous sum is demanded.

Baffles me that players still don't realise they are in the position of power when negotiating contract extentions, and don't demand a release clause, giving them considerably more control and freedom to choose where they play.
A release clause is a trade off against the wage. Clubs don’t want to pay top dollar AND have a clause that forces them to sell.

Players don’t know what their future value will be, or even if they will be healthy. It’s not that baffling that they put wages as their priority.
 

Trequarista10

Full Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2020
Messages
2,536
A release clause is a trade off against the wage. Clubs don’t want to pay top dollar AND have a clause that forces them to sell.

Players don’t know what their future value will be, or even if they will be healthy. It’s not that baffling that they put wages as their priority.
It is baffling. They commit themselves not only for money but in the fantasy that their club will push on to the next level. Kane isnt wanting to leave Spurs for money, it's because he realises he made a massive mistake believing Spurs would compete for the top honours. The vast majority of players would choose to earn less and win more.

Obviously there's an element of risk, financially, given form, demand and value can fluctuate or decline, but ultimately they would most likely earn more money anyway if they didn't tie themselves down to long contracts. As in almost certainly, barring extremely rare career threatening injuries (which are much rarer now than 20 years ago). These days 20 or 30 million transfer fee is considered a cheap punt for top clubs, that's the equivalent of 200k a week for 2-3 years. You could probably insure yourself against career ending injury if you're that risk averse, too.

I think it's only a matter of time until we see more top players negotiating short deals and moving clubs frequently. They will likely make more money that way anyway, as they can move out of contract/with a year left, so the player will negotiate a % of the money the buying club saves as wages/sign on fee. Kane himself said Spurs might want to sell him for "£100m". That's more money than Spurs have paid Kane himself throughout his career.

If I was a Kane level player I'd be signing one or two year deals in my 20s, spend a few years hopping around Spain, Italy, Germany, experience the different leagues, rack up numerous league titles, sample the culture and women of those nations, and keep moving to whichever club either had the best chance of winning the CL or would pay me the most, depending on my motivation at the time. I wouldn't sign a 5 year deal until I'm 30+.

The only reason players don't do it is because it's not the done thing. As soon as one or two players do it successfully, more will follow.
 

OrcaFat

Full Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,657
It is baffling. They commit themselves not only for money but in the fantasy that their club will push on to the next level. Kane isnt wanting to leave Spurs for money, it's because he realises he made a massive mistake believing Spurs would compete for the top honours. The vast majority of players would choose to earn less and win more.

Obviously there's an element of risk, financially, given form, demand and value can fluctuate or decline, but ultimately they would most likely earn more money anyway if they didn't tie themselves down to long contracts. As in almost certainly, barring extremely rare career threatening injuries (which are much rarer now than 20 years ago). These days 20 or 30 million transfer fee is considered a cheap punt for top clubs, that's the equivalent of 200k a week for 2-3 years. You could probably insure yourself against career ending injury if you're that risk averse, too.

I think it's only a matter of time until we see more top players negotiating short deals and moving clubs frequently. They will likely make more money that way anyway, as they can move out of contract/with a year left, so the player will negotiate a % of the money the buying club saves as wages/sign on fee. Kane himself said Spurs might want to sell him for "£100m". That's more money than Spurs have paid Kane himself throughout his career.

If I was a Kane level player I'd be signing one or two year deals in my 20s, spend a few years hopping around Spain, Italy, Germany, experience the different leagues, rack up numerous league titles, sample the culture and women of those nations, and keep moving to whichever club either had the best chance of winning the CL or would pay me the most, depending on my motivation at the time. I wouldn't sign a 5 year deal until I'm 30+.

The only reason players don't do it is because it's not the done thing. As soon as one or two players do it successfully, more will follow.
Interesting assessment but you make it sound like all the players and agents have no brains at all.

Release clauses do exist, seem to be reasonably common, and are just part of the negotiation. It’s nothing to do with being the done thing. These clauses come at a cost of reduced wages it’s as simple as that.
 

Hammondo

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
6,664
It is baffling. They commit themselves not only for money but in the fantasy that their club will push on to the next level. Kane isnt wanting to leave Spurs for money, it's because he realises he made a massive mistake believing Spurs would compete for the top honours. The vast majority of players would choose to earn less and win more.

Obviously there's an element of risk, financially, given form, demand and value can fluctuate or decline, but ultimately they would most likely earn more money anyway if they didn't tie themselves down to long contracts. As in almost certainly, barring extremely rare career threatening injuries (which are much rarer now than 20 years ago). These days 20 or 30 million transfer fee is considered a cheap punt for top clubs, that's the equivalent of 200k a week for 2-3 years. You could probably insure yourself against career ending injury if you're that risk averse, too.

I think it's only a matter of time until we see more top players negotiating short deals and moving clubs frequently. They will likely make more money that way anyway, as they can move out of contract/with a year left, so the player will negotiate a % of the money the buying club saves as wages/sign on fee. Kane himself said Spurs might want to sell him for "£100m". That's more money than Spurs have paid Kane himself throughout his career.

If I was a Kane level player I'd be signing one or two year deals in my 20s, spend a few years hopping around Spain, Italy, Germany, experience the different leagues, rack up numerous league titles, sample the culture and women of those nations, and keep moving to whichever club either had the best chance of winning the CL or would pay me the most, depending on my motivation at the time. I wouldn't sign a 5 year deal until I'm 30+.

The only reason players don't do it is because it's not the done thing. As soon as one or two players do it successfully, more will follow.
I don't know what world you live in where clubs will agree to that contract.
 

Trequarista10

Full Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2020
Messages
2,536
I don't know what world you live in where clubs will agree to that contract.
You think if United or City had the chance to sign Kane for free, and Kane said he wanted a one or two year deal they wouldn't be interested?

For context, Bayern paid Real Madrid €13m to loan a fairly out of favour James Rodriguez for 2 seasons, plus whatever James' wages were. If James' had been out of contract, Bayern could have paid him the same wages plus the loan fee directly.

It was similar with 33 year old Cavani. The numbers reported vary but its approximately 10m a year wages, 3-4m signing on fee, plus several million to his agents, for a one year contract.

27 year old peak Kane could negotiate himself an absolutely monster contract for a year or two if they had to pay nothing to Spurs. I'd hate to think how much clubs would be willing to pay him to be honest, don't even want to speculate because it would be an insane amount.
 

Ish

Lights on for Luke
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
32,056
Location
Voted the best city in the world
I like Grealish and I think he’s had an immense season but where/how’d we fit him in? From what I’ve seen, Grealish is best used as a left sided attacker or a AM - that’s where Rashford and Bruno operate. Sure Grealish can play as an 8 or maybe even as a right sided attacker - but again, at the cost that it would require to push this deal through, we’d need to try and sign players and play them in the best position. Rashford is much less effective on the right, so switching him over also “weakens” us, IMO.

A bit like someone who wanted us to sign Son. Very good player, but we’re not short of left sided attackers and have about 3-4 other massive upgrades needed in the starting XI. Starting with RW. Kane would be more than welcome - though highly unlikely.
 

mitchmouse

loves to hate United.
Joined
Oct 8, 2014
Messages
17,361
Four or five weeks ago I felt Pogba would sign a new deal - now I'e got a growing feeling he'll be off: that'll make three midfielders we need; I'd probably go with Rice, Grealish and Sancho (off the top of my head with realistic targets)
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
10,047
Location
Blitztown
Let’s leave the money out of it for a bit because it should be achievable with the addition of £50 million
Pogba and Martial out, Kane & Grealish in and all we pay is £50m? How?

The money matters quite a bit. Kane & Grealish will be £160-210m. For United. I guess it’s not miles apart but I reckon the gap could/would be £100m.
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
10,047
Location
Blitztown
I can never get over that ludicrous agent fee. If I was in that field I'd expect to be paid well with all the money being involved, but still. It's like he's pushing it just for fun to see how far it can go.
His players are mugs. The best ones I mean. Absolute mugs.

Unless he cuts them in for 50% of that fee. Which could be happening I guess.
 

Yagami

Good post resistant
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
13,472
Grealish is better than Sancho. I hope, if it's one or the other, we go for Jack.
 

SAFMUTD

New Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
11,787
Grealish is better than Sancho. I hope, if it's one or the other, we go for Jack.
Problem is Grealish plays either as a LW or CAM, exactly where our two best performers play. I would love him here, but I dont see how we can squeeze him in the same XI with Rashford and Bruno.
 

RedRonaldo

Wishes to be oppressed.
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Messages
18,996
This. We keep ignoring the RW every window and end up shifting players around to appease someone else on the LW.
We get a RW and we will see the end of McFred. Rashford will be played on the left so pushes Pogba back to MF for one of Fred or McTominay.
We already have Greenwood and Diallo on the right though. What I think is, Greenwood isn’t ready for no.9 role yet as he is far better cutting in from right side and shoot rather than holding up play as target man, whereas Diallo is just as talent as Sancho when he was 18, who needs more game time to develop. So if we have Sancho it will solve our RW problems immediately, but will also create long term problems with Greenwood and Diallo.
 
Last edited:

croadyman

Full Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
34,337
Grealish is better than Sancho. I hope, if it's one or the other, we go for Jack.
I think the decision would be less clear cut if Grealish had played on the RW for Villa more than just a cameo against Palace this season, personally I think it's a case of Jadon's pace and trickery on the right versus Jack's close control and ability to beat players on the left.
 
Last edited:

jackal&hyde

Full Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
4,220
Grealish is better than Sancho. I hope, if it's one or the other, we go for Jack.
No he isn't. Not on the RW where both creativity and pace are needed. He is not better then Bruno for the 10 either and on the left we have Rashford and occasionally Pogba.

Grealish is just not needed. Don't get the constant media links.
 

Coops73

Full Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
3,334
Would love Grealish at the club but while Pogba is here I doubt it would happen but I would sell Pogba to get Grealish all day long.
 

BrilliantOrange

Full Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2018
Messages
1,338
Supports
Ajax Amsterdam
Kane over Martial is an obvious improvement. Grealish over Kane is something you can definitely argue about, but give Pogba his contract situation I think I would sell him anyway this summer and us the money to bring in some other quaility, which could be Grealish (or a deep lying playmaker or ball playing defender)
 

Nou_Camp99

what would Souness do?
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
10,274
Pogba still hasn't signed this new deal and we still have so many clambering for him to stay. His heart hasn't been in this club for 2 years now.

Sell him and Martial (as well as a few others) and go get Jack and Jadon.
 

The Sub Goalie

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 26, 2021
Messages
5
I disagree with the opinion that Grealish is not needed. Sure finances look like they won't allow, however looking at Man City they have a wealth of talent that allows them to change their starting 11 without weakening their team.

Adding Grealish would be a massive upgrade to the squad, allowing players like Bruno & Rashford to be rested and not over burn and have strong options from the bench allowing a stronger challenge on all competitions, it is a long season.
 

ForeverRed1

Full Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
5,356
Location
England UK!
I like Grealish and I think he’s had an immense season but where/how’d we fit him in? From what I’ve seen, Grealish is best used as a left sided attacker or a AM - that’s where Rashford and Bruno operate. Sure Grealish can play as an 8 or maybe even as a right sided attacker - but again, at the cost that it would require to push this deal through, we’d need to try and sign players and play them in the best position. Rashford is much less effective on the right, so switching him over also “weakens” us, IMO.

A bit like someone who wanted us to sign Son. Very good player, but we’re not short of left sided attackers and have about 3-4 other massive upgrades needed in the starting XI. Starting with RW. Kane would be more than welcome - though highly unlikely.
Grealish is very interchangeable, can play anywhere across the front, other than as a striker. Infact pretty much every attacker we have barr Cavani can play anywhere across the front which would massively throw teams off. Imagine not knowing if you o
Pogba still hasn't signed this new deal and we still have so many clambering for him to stay. His heart hasn't been in this club for 2 years now.

Sell him and Martial (as well as a few others) and go get Jack and Jadon.
This is my dream summer scenario but it will never happen. Would improve us massively.
 

Lynty

Full Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2014
Messages
3,094
Grealish is just not needed. Don't get the constant media links.
Arguably the most gifted player in the league.

I agree that there's other positions that we're more in need of, but he'd still be my number 1 target.
 

Dan_F

Full Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
10,317
Grealish is better than Sancho. I hope, if it's one or the other, we go for Jack.
In fairness, Grealish was playing in the Championship and scoring 3-5 goals a season at the same age.
 

yamo123x

Full Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2003
Messages
2,987
Location
england
its baffling why some of our fans are against Grealish signing.
IMO he is exactly what we need, someone who can retain the ball for us, drive forward and create.

He would be my priority signing, along with Rice.
 

youmeletsfly

New Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2018
Messages
2,528
I love Pogba, he's my favorite United player, but Grealish & Kane/Sancho are well worth it if Pogba leaves, not even a question.
 

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
5,861
I’m keen to learn the direction we think our squad and first 11 should take in terms of attackers. We haven’t brought any forwards in their prime since Ole started. I think Cavani highlights how valuable a proven forward with the right motivation can be.

So if we had the option of selling Pogba and Martial and replacing them with Grealish and Kane would you take it.

Let’s leave the money out of it for a bit because it should be achievable with the addition of £50 million

Possible main front four goes from this

Pogba, Martial, Greenwood, Rashford, Cavani, Bruno.

To this:

Kane, Grealish, Rashford, Cavani, Bruno, Greenwood
That's a hugely optimistic assessment of the finances. Realistically, Kane and Grealish would cost somewhere between 200 and 250 million, while Pogba and Martial, if you can move them, would not bring in more than 100 combined.
 

Oranges038

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2020
Messages
11,788
It is baffling. They commit themselves not only for money but in the fantasy that their club will push on to the next level. Kane isnt wanting to leave Spurs for money, it's because he realises he made a massive mistake believing Spurs would compete for the top honours. The vast majority of players would choose to earn less and win more.

Obviously there's an element of risk, financially, given form, demand and value can fluctuate or decline, but ultimately they would most likely earn more money anyway if they didn't tie themselves down to long contracts. As in almost certainly, barring extremely rare career threatening injuries (which are much rarer now than 20 years ago). These days 20 or 30 million transfer fee is considered a cheap punt for top clubs, that's the equivalent of 200k a week for 2-3 years. You could probably insure yourself against career ending injury if you're that risk averse, too.

I think it's only a matter of time until we see more top players negotiating short deals and moving clubs frequently. They will likely make more money that way anyway, as they can move out of contract/with a year left, so the player will negotiate a % of the money the buying club saves as wages/sign on fee. Kane himself said Spurs might want to sell him for "£100m". That's more money than Spurs have paid Kane himself throughout his career.

If I was a Kane level player I'd be signing one or two year deals in my 20s, spend a few years hopping around Spain, Italy, Germany, experience the different leagues, rack up numerous league titles, sample the culture and women of those nations, and keep moving to whichever club either had the best chance of winning the CL or would pay me the most, depending on my motivation at the time. I wouldn't sign a 5 year deal until I'm 30+.

The only reason players don't do it is because it's not the done thing. As soon as one or two players do it successfully, more will follow.
Players don't do it because the clubs won't agree to it. Part of the reason they sign 4 and 5 years deals is that the club insist on them in order to protect their investment in the player and as a way of being able to get a fee if the player wants a move or another club wants that player.

Oh and the chances of getting a 5 year deal as a 30 year old are pretty much non existant. Chances are you go for a career like that you end up signing a one year deal at Monaco or Lyon at 30, by the time your 35 you'll be plying your trade at Sampdoria or Crystal Palace.
 

Acquire Me

Full Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
8,362
Location
Norway
Grealish is twice the player Sancho will ever be
Bold statement. I really want Grealish myself, but Sancho is one hell of a player. I can see him becoming one of the best in the world. So damn young and doing so good at this stage.

If we move Pogba this year, Grealish is a no brainer.
 

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
5,861
Bold statement. I really want Grealish myself, but Sancho is one hell of a player. I can see him becoming one of the best in the world. So damn young and doing so good at this stage.

If we move Pogba this year, Grealish is a no brainer.
I'd prefer Grealish to Sancho (or Pogba), not least because of his positional versatility, which we really need. Don't think he'll be feasible to get though.
 

Acquire Me

Full Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
8,362
Location
Norway
I'd prefer Grealish to Sancho (or Pogba), not least because of his positional versatility, which we really need. Don't think he'll be feasible to get though.
I want us to sign him as well. No doubt about that. But I dont like the idea of having Pogba and Grealish. That does not make sense for me at least. If Pogba sign a new contract, then I guess Grealish is a no go. Will be a very interesting transfer window.
 

hubbuh

New Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
6,110
Location
UK, hun?
I'd love to know what the higherups have in mind with regards to Pogba. It's his last big contract so Raiola will be even thirstier than usual to cash in as much as possible. From our point of view, is offering him a fat new contract (£400k plus they'll want, I'd imagine?) the most sensible thing to do? He's 29 next season and we're still figuring out how best to fit him in alongside our most effective player in Bruno. At the same time we desperately need his creativity. Tough one.
 

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
5,861
I want us to sign him as well. No doubt about that. But I dont like the idea of having Pogba and Grealish. That does not make sense for me at least. If Pogba sign a new contract, then I guess Grealish is a no go. Will be a very interesting transfer window.
No, I agree. If you assume that Pogba's place is now on the left flank, I think it's actually questionable if we can really accomodate another starting XI-level player in the forward line at all.
 

justsomebloke

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
5,861
I'd love to know what the higherups have in mind with regards to Pogba. It's his last big contract so Raiola will be even thirstier than usual to cash in as much as possible. From our point of view, is offering him a fat new contract (£400k plus they'll want, I'd imagine?) the most sensible thing to do? He's 29 next season and we're still figuring out how best to fit him in alongside our most effective player in Bruno. At the same time we desperately need his creativity. Tough one.
It is, isn't it. With how he's been buying into things lately and the talent he has, it seems wrong to let him go. Also, with the market being what it is, we're almost certainly not going to find a taker who'd put much more than 50m on the table. In the worst case, we'd fail to renew and then not find a taker at all. But on the other hand he's not really a great fit playing on the left, where Rashford should be playing.
 

Acquire Me

Full Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
8,362
Location
Norway
I'd love to know what the higherups have in mind with regards to Pogba. It's his last big contract so Raiola will be even thirstier than usual to cash in as much as possible. From our point of view, is offering him a fat new contract (£400k plus they'll want, I'd imagine?) the most sensible thing to do? He's 29 next season and we're still figuring out how best to fit him in alongside our most effective player in Bruno. At the same time we desperately need his creativity. Tough one.
It's a tough one for sure. If we could move him for a good price, I would do that if we could get Grealish in. I really like Pogba, but in the long run I think that would be the best move.